DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to applicant’s submissions filed on 9/22/2025. Claims 15, 17, 19-23, 25-27 and 29-33 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/22/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102.
In response to applicant’s argument that claims 15, 17 and 23 were amended without adding new matter (applicant’s remarks; p. 7), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Calculating an attentional score based on pieces of information that have already been validated for display and simultaneously displaying several pieces of information appear to be new matter. See rejections below.
In response to applicant’s argument that the attentional score is not a product of mere mental calculation in the claimed invention … the attentional score is computed using multimodal data acquired from different sensors (applicant’s remarks; p. 7), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The attentional score is calculated based on collected pieces of attentional information, however, the collected pieces of attentional information are not required to be acquired from different types of [multimodal] sensors. As claimed, the plurality of sensors are configured to collect one or more of: a physiological state of the driver, a psychological state of the driver, and operating state of the mean of locomotion, or environmental conditions. Further, the type of sensor used to collect each attentional information is undefined and therefore generic. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, one or more cameras could be used to determine all of the recited pieces attentional information, as could a person observing the vehicle and driver. The details of the attentional score calculation are not provided, therefore, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim includes the abstract idea of a person ranking a driver’s level of attention and, for each piece of content to be displayed, determining the type of content and an associated threshold score for its display, and forming a simple judgement about whether or not to display the content by comparing the driver’s level of attention to the threshold. See rejection below.
In response to applicant’s argument that the amount and type of visual information that is simultaneously presented to a driver is dynamically managed in real-time (applicant’s remarks; p. 8), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are not limited to real-time operation. See rejection below.
In response to applicant’s argument that the claimed invention integrates the idea into a practical application because it uses the attentional score to selectively filter and prioritize content in real time (applicant’s remarks; pp. 8-9), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are not limited to real-time operation, content prioritization is generically recited such that it can be performed in the human mind, and the filtering merely comprises determining the display class of a piece of content and its associated attentional score threshold and comparing it to the driver’s current attentional level. See rejection below.
In response to applicant’s argument that the claimed invention amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea because it uses a lookup table and calculates an attentional score for each piece of new content to be displayed (applicant’s remarks; p. 9), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The lookup table is generically recited and using a memory to store tabulated data that are used to look up values is well-understood, routine, and conventional. As described above, dynamically filtering/prioritizing information is a simple comparison that can be performed in the mind. See rejection below.
In response to applicant’s argument that the claimed invention amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea because it includes attention-scoring via multiple environmental and physiological sensors and filtered/prioritized display control over a HUD device (applicant’s remarks; pp. 9-10), the examiner respectfully disagrees. As described above, attention scoring does not require multiple environmental and physiological sensors and, as claimed, can be performed in the mind. Also described above, dynamically filtering/prioritizing information is a simple comparison that can be performed in the mind. Lastly, the claims are directed to a generic display device which is a well-understood, routine, and conventional method for displaying data to an operator of a vehicle. See rejection below.
In response to applicant’s argument that the decision whether or not to display one particular piece of information in Talati is independent of the order in which this decision is made in relation to the other pieces of information to be displayed (applicant’s remarks; p. 11), the examiner respectfully disagrees. In figure 8, Talati discloses that, for each pending notification 86, a display decision is made at step 90, then the remaining notification are sorted by priority. Talati, in paragraph 26, further discloses the prioritize queue is dynamically sorted and resorted on a real time basis. Therefore, the decision to display each pending notification depends on the order in which the decision is made relative to the display decisions for the prior notification because the priority is updated after each decision. See rejection below.
In response to applicant’s argument that Talati does not use the order of priority to determine an order in which decisions whether or not to display each piece of information should be successively made, as required by pending claims 15, 17 and 23 (applicant’s remarks; p. 11), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 15, 17 and 23 do not require successively making decisions whether or not to display each piece of information in order of priority, rather, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are limited to merely accounting for the order of priority when making the decision. Talati, in figure 4, clearly discloses a determination is made at step 82 of a notification that is assigned an order of priority at step 72. See rejection below.
In response to applicant’s argument that the decision whether or not to display one particular piece of information in Talati is independent of the order in which this decision is made in relation to the other pieces of information to be displayed (applicant’s remarks; p. 11), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Talati, in paragraph 29, discloses if an incoming notification being processed is deemed not appropriate to show, it is tagged to be stored for possible display at a future time. Talati, in paragraph 32, further discloses assigning attention level values dynamically by modifying the static attention level values depending on the real time driver attention metric and upon the identity of notifications already in the queue. Talati additionally discloses, in figure 8, that after each decision is made to display a notification using the current driver attention level, the remaining notifications are sorted by priority. Therefore, Talati discloses a display decision of a piece of information depends on earlier decisions to display other pieces of information. See rejection below.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on page 19, line 4, it is unclear what is confirmed in order to cause some pieces of attentional information to take on a predetermined value.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 15, 17 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 15, 17 and 23 should be limited to a single colon, because using multiple colons in a single sentence to form nested lists is grammatically incorrect and makes it difficult to determine the relationships between limitations.
In claim 17, line 12, “representative a physiological state” should read “representative of a physiological state”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In claim 23, line 18, “calculate an attentional score” should read “calculating an attentional score”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In claims 30 and 32, lines 3-4, “upon a change” should read “upon the change” so that it is clear that the claim is directed to a single change of the attentional score of the driver. This appears to be a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
A communication module configured to receive attentional information in claim 17, line 10.
An image generator configured to generate an image in claim 19, lines 1-2. Page 21, lines 11-12 disclose the corresponding structure for generating an image to be projected is “a light source and micro- mirrors of an electronic circuit of the DLP (digital light processing) type”, therefore, the interpretation of the image generator is a DLP projector and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15, 17, 19-23, 25-27 and 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 15, 17 and 23, lines 24, 26 and 20, respectively, the limitation “pieces of information that have already been validated for display” appears to be new matter because there is no explicit disclosure of validating pieces of information for display. Page 7, lines 21-23, disclose a positive decision to display a piece of information can be further contingent on verification of a legal constraint, however, this verification does not appear to be used to calculate an attentional score, and no additional details are disclosed linking this verification to the validation recited in the independent claims. Page 19, line 4, discloses the attentional score can be set to a predetermined value when some pieces of attentional information are confirmed, however, no additional details are disclosed linking this confirmation to the validation recited in the independent claims.
Regarding claim 15, 17 and 23, lines 22-24, 24-26 and 18-20, respectively, the limitation “calculate an attentional score … based on the collected pieces of attentional information and based on pieces of information that have already been validated for display” appears to be new matter because, as discussed above, there is no explicit disclosure of validating pieces of information for display, therefore, there cannot be disclosure of calculating an attentional score based on attentional information and validated information.
Regarding claims 15, 17, and 23, lines 12, 16 and 10-11, respectively, the limitation “several pieces of information to be displayed simultaneously” appears to be new matter because there is no explicit disclosure of displaying more the one piece of information at the same time. Page 8, lines 7-20, disclose the decisions whether or not to display several pieces of information are successively made in order of priority, and that the decision to display a piece of information can affect a subsequent decision. Page 10, lines 28-31, disclose when there is more than one piece of information to be displayed, the decision to display each piece of information is made successively in order of priority. Figure 3 discloses collecting one or more pieces of information to be displayed, but the method ends at the decision whether or not to display each piece of information. Page 17, lines 10-11, further disclose “the higher the attentional score, the more information can be displayed within the field of vision of the driver”, however, it is not explicitly disclosed that more information is displayed by simultaneously displaying a plurality of pieces of information. There is no disclosure of simultaneously displaying several pieces of information because the disclosure appears to be limited to successively displaying information in order of priority.
Claims 19-22, 25-27 and 29-33 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claims 15, 17, 19-23, 25-27 and 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claims 15, 17 and 23, lines 24, 26 and 20, respectively, the limitation “pieces of information that have already been validated for display” does not appear to be enabled in the specification. Page 7, lines 21-23, disclose a positive decision to display a piece of information can be further contingent on verification of a legal constraint, however, this verification does not appear to be used to calculate an attentional score, and no additional details are disclosed linking this verification to the validation recited in the independent claims. Page 19, line 4, discloses the attentional score can be set to a predetermined value when some pieces of attentional information are confirmed, however, no additional details are disclosed linking this confirmation to the validation recited in the independent claims. One of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize that the specification of the invention provides support for the claims, and would not be able to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 15, 17 and 23, lines 22-24, 24-26 and 18-20, respectively, the limitation “calculate an attentional score representative of the level of attention of the driver based on the collected pieces of attentional information and based on pieces of information that have already been validated for display” does not appear to be enabled in the specification. Page 7, lines 21-23, disclose a positive decision to display a piece of information can be further contingent on verification of a legal constraint, however, this verification does not appear to be used to calculate an attentional score, and no additional details are disclosed linking this verification to the validation recited in the independent claims. Page 19, line 4, discloses the attentional score can be set to a predetermined value when some pieces of attentional information are confirmed, however, no additional details are disclosed linking this confirmation to the validation recited in the independent claims. It is unclear how an attentional score is calculated based on pieces of information that have been displayed for validation because the written description does not describe how pieces of information are validated for display. It is further unclear how the level of attention of the driver is affected by pieces of information that have not been displayed to the driver, but were merely validated for display. One of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize that the specification of the invention provides support for the claims, and would not be able to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 19-22, 25-27 and 29-33 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15, 17, 19-23, 25-27 and 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 15, 17, and 23, lines 12, 16 and 10-11, respectively, the limitation “several pieces of information to be displayed simultaneously” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear how the information is displayed simultaneously. Page 8, lines 7-20, disclose the decisions whether or not to display several pieces of information are successively made in order of priority, and that the decision to display a piece of information can affect a subsequent decision. Page 10, lines 28-31, disclose when there is more than one piece of information to be displayed, the decision to display each piece of information is made successively in order of priority. Figure 3 discloses collecting one or more pieces of information to be displayed, but the method ends at the decision whether or not to display each piece of information. Page 17, lines 10-11, further disclose “the higher the attentional score, the more information can be displayed within the field of vision of the driver”, however, it is not explicitly disclosed that more information is displayed by simultaneously displaying a plurality of pieces of information. The disclosure appears to be limited to successively displaying information in order of priority. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that a plurality of pieces of information can be displayed at the same time.
Regarding claims 15 and 17, lines 25-26 and 27-28, respectively, the limitation “a threshold value associated with the display class” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear if it is the previously recited threshold value stored in the table. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the threshold values used for comparisons are obtained from the table in memory.
Regarding claim 15, 17 and 23, lines 22-24, 24-26 and 18-20, respectively, the limitation “calculate an attentional score … based on the collected pieces of attentional information and based on pieces of information that have already been validated for display” renders the claim indefinite because there is no explicit disclosure of validating pieces of information for display, therefore, it is unclear how the attentional score based on attentional information and validated information is calculated. Page 8, lines 20-24, disclose a decision whether or not display high-priority information can impact the attentional score value used for the decision on whether or not to display lower-priority information, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the attentional score is calculated based on attentional information and previous decisions to display higher-priority pieces of information.
Regarding claim 17, line 10, the limitation “a communication module configured to receive attentional information” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Page 14, lines 30-33, disclose the communication module is configured to be compatible with various radio and wired technologies, however, no structure is defined for implement the communication module. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the communication module is software instructions that receive sensor data when executed.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 29, line 2, the limitation “code instructions to configure a processor” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the code instructions are used to configure the at least one processor recited in claim 23, line 3. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claims are directed to the same processor.
Regarding claims 30 and 32, lines 2-3, the limitation “updates a determination whether or not to display” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the updated determination is the determination made in parent claims 15, line 28, and claim 23, lines 23-34. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the previously recited display decisions are updated.
Regarding claims 31 and 33, line 2, the limitation “updates a determination whether or not to display” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the updated determination is the determination made in parent claims 15, line 28, and claim 23, lines 23-34. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the previously recited display decisions are updated.
Claims 19-22, 25-27 and 29-33 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP § 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP § 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG ONE): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG TWO): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP § 2106.05
Claims 15, 17, 19-23, 25-27 and 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 17 is directed to a device to control the display of information (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 17 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding Prong One of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP § 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP § 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 17 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with
the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder
of the analysis. Claim 17 recites:
A device to control the display of information in a field of vision of a driver of a means of locomotion, comprising:
at least one processor;
a memory to store a table associating different display classes with respective threshold values of an attentional score representative of a level of attention of the driver; and
a communication module configured to receive attentional information collected from a plurality of sensors, each sensor configured to collect attentional information representative a physiological state of the driver, a psychological state of the driver, an operating state of the means of locomotion or environmental conditions outside the means of locomotion;
said at least one processor configured to:
collect several pieces of information to be displayed simultaneously in the field of vision of the driver, each piece of information to be displayed belonging to a display class from the table;
order the several pieces of information by an order of priority [mental process/step];
receive from the communication module pieces of attentional information collected from the plurality of sensors;
for each piece of information to be displayed, according to the order of priority, said at least one processor is configured to:
calculate an attentional score representative of the level of attention of the driver based on the received pieces of attentional information and based on pieces of information that have already been validated for display [mental process/step];
compare the attentional score to a threshold value associated with the display class to which said each piece of information to be displayed belongs to provide a comparison result [mental process/step] and
determine whether or not to display said each piece of information to be displayed based on the comparison result [mental process/step].
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “order the several pieces of information…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person sorting a list of information. “Calculate an attentional score…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person observing a driver and displayed information then assigning a value on a relative scale (e.g., 1-5) representing how distracted they appear to be. “Compare the attentional score to a threshold value…” and “determine whether or not to display…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person forming a simple judgement that a piece of information should be displayed by comparing its threshold value to the calculated attentional score. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong Two
Regarding Prong Two of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A device to control the display of information in a field of vision of a driver of a means of locomotion, comprising:
at least one processor [generic computing component];
a memory to store a table associating different display classes with respective threshold values of an attentional score representative of a level of attention of the driver [pre-solution activity (storing data)]; and
a communication module configured to receive attentional information collected from a plurality of sensors, each sensor configured to collect attentional information representative a physiological state of the driver, a psychological state of the driver, an operating state of the means of locomotion or environmental conditions outside the means of locomotion [pre-solution activity (receiving data)];
said at least one processor configured to [applying the abstract idea using a generic computing component]:
collect several pieces of information to be displayed simultaneously in the field of vision of the driver, each piece of information to be displayed belonging to a display class from the table [pre-solution activity (receiving data)];
order the several pieces of information by an order of priority;
receive from the communication module pieces of attentional information collected from the plurality of sensors [pre-solution activity (receiving data)];
for each piece of information to be displayed, according to the order of priority, said at least one processor is configured to:
calculate an attentional score representative of the level of attention of the driver based on the received pieces of attentional information and based on pieces of information that have already been validated for display;
compare the attentional score to a threshold value associated with the display class to which said each piece of information to be displayed belongs to provide a comparison result and
determine whether or not to display said each piece of information to be displayed based on the comparison result.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “…store a table…”, “…receive attentional information…”, “collect several pieces of information…”, and “receive … pieces of attentional information…”, the examiner submits that the limitation(s) is/are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor and memory) to perform the process. In particular, the receive and collect steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of obtaining sensor data and display content items), and amount to merely receiving data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The store step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of holding tabulated data), and amounts to merely storing data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “processor” and “memory” is/are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing the generic computer function(s) of storing, receiving, and comparing data) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 17 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor and memory to “order the several pieces of information…”, “calculate an attentional score…”, “compare the attentional score to a threshold value…”, and “determine whether or not to display…” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Also discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner submits that the additional limitation(s) of “…store a table…”, “…receive attentional information…”, “collect several pieces of information…”, and “receive … pieces of attentional information…” is/are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 15 is/are substantially the same subject matter as claim 17 which falls under one of the statutory categories in step 1. Therefore, claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under step 2 for the same reasons above.
Claim(s) 23 is/are substantially the same subject matter as claim 17 except drawn to a method for controlling the display of information (i.e., a process) which falls under one of the statutory categories in step 1. Therefore, claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under step 2 for the same reasons above.
Dependent claim(s) 19-22, 25-27 and 29-33 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception. Therefore, dependent claims 19-22, 25-27 and 29-33 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 15, 17 and 23.
Therefore, claims 15, 17, 19-23, 25-27 and 29-33 is/are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 15, 17, 23, 25-27 and 29-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talati et al. (US 2013/0038437) in view of Neiswander et al. (US 2018/0111552), hereinafter Talati and Neiswander, respectively.
Regarding claims 15, 17 and 23, as best understood, Talati discloses a device to control the display of information in a field of vision of a driver of a means of locomotion, comprising: at least one processor (Talati; fig. 2: processor 30); a memory (Talati; fig. 2: memory 34) to store a table associating different display classes with respective threshold values of an attentional score representative of a level of attention of the driver (Talati; para. 31: The prioritized queue stores notification records in a queue data structure [i.e., a one-dimensional table] where each notification corresponds to a predetermined task or an incoming notification to which is associated a required attention level value. The required attention level value may be statically or dynamically constructed. In one embodiment, each type of notification (task or message) is assigned to a predetermined class of notifications and thus inherits the required attention level value associated with that class.); and a communication module configured to receive attentional information collected from a plurality of sensors (Talati; para. 49: The data gathered from these and other disparate sources of driver attention-bearing information may be processed as shown in FIG. 7. The process begins at step 80 whereupon each of the sensor sources 72 is interrogated as at 74. The features, such as those discussed above, are extracted for each sensor and the values normalized as at step 76.) each sensor configured to collect attentional information representative a physiological state of the driver (Talati; fig. 6, block 72: driver eye tracking), a psychological state of the driver, an operating state of the means of locomotion (Talati; fig. 7, block 72: engine status) or environmental conditions outside the means of locomotion; said at least one processor configured to: collect several pieces of information to be displayed (Talati; para. 21: notification manager 50 is principally involved in harvesting, processing and presenting incoming tasks and notifications for display) simultaneously in the field of vision of the driver (Talati; para. 19: a user-manipulable graphical display that includes a generally horizontally disposed notification bar which presents various incoming notifications and tasks in a prioritized order when scanned from left to right), each piece of information to be displayed belonging to a display class from the table (Talati; para. 31: In one embodiment, each type of notification (task or message) is assigned to a predetermined class of notifications); order the several pieces of information by an order of priority (Talati; para. 26: The output module 62 also administers and maintains a prioritized queue 68 which is implemented as a queue data structure stored in memory 34 and operated upon by the processor 30 to organize incoming tasks and incoming notifications according [to] a predetermined set of rules.); receive from the communication module pieces of attentional information collected from the plurality of sensors (Talati; para. 35: the system first performs feature extraction at 74 to convert the data from disparate sources into a common format); for each piece of information to be displayed, according to the order of priority, said at least one processor is configured to: calculate an attentional score representative of the level of attention of the driver based on the received pieces of attentional information (Talati; fig. 8: the current driver attention level is determined for each pending event); compare the attentional score to a threshold value associated with the display class to which said each piece of information to be displayed belongs to provide a comparison result (Talati; fig. 8: decision block 90) and determine whether or not to display said each piece of information to be displayed based on the comparison result (Talati; fig. 8: decision blocks 92 & 94).
Talati does not explicitly disclose calculating the attentional score based on pieces of information that have already been validated for display.
Neiswander, in the same field of endeavor (driver notification management), discloses calculating an attentional score based on pieces of information that have already been validated for display (Neiswander; para. 44: attention management module 24 may assign a higher glance value … when more content or more complex content is being displayed to a user than when less content or simpler content is being displayed to a user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the calculation of the real-time driver attention level, based on sensor data, in the processor of Talati to also account for the amount and complexity of content that has already been displayed, as disclosed by Neiswander, with the motivation of managing an attention level of the vehicle operator directed towards the driving task, thereby avoiding unsafe distraction during driving (Neiswander; para. 18).
Regarding claim 25, Talati, as modified, discloses the display class (Talati; para. 31: In one embodiment, each type of notification (task or message) is assigned to a predetermined class of notifications and thus inherits the required attention level value associated with that class.) corresponds to one of the following classes: information on an operating status of the means of locomotion relevant to a driving safety (Talati; para. 40: Vehicle speed substantially greater than average or expected speed limits would generate a lower available driver attention value to account for the possibility that the driver needs to apply extra attention to driving.), information on environmental conditions outside the means of locomotion and relevant to the driving safety (Talati; para. 57: Some notifications that are universally important, such as alerting the driver to dangerous weather conditions, may be hard-coded into the notif